## what Marxism really is.....

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Much conflation

- a general bail/bond fund is not an antifa defense fund.
- protestors and rioters are not the same thing.
- posting bail does not “free” anyone from justice.

Anyone who posts bail would still have to stand stand trial if subsequently charged. Turns out some protestors were temporarily detained or incarcerated without any charges to follow.

I simply wanted to know if the claim that Kamala Harris donated to an antifa defense fund was true.

fuse
Philosopher

Posts: 4593
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

But it's not true Marxism. It never is.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.

Dan~
ILP Legend

Posts: 10438
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

fuse wrote:Much conflation

- a general bail/bond fund is not an antifa defense fund.
- protestors and rioters are not the same thing.
- posting bail does not “free” anyone from justice.

Anyone who posts bail would still have to stand stand trial if subsequently charged. Turns out some protestors were temporarily detained or incarcerated without any charges to follow.

I simply wanted to know if the claim that Kamala Harris donated to an antifa defense fund was true.

We get it, you're a Marxist Sympathizer. Of course you defend rioters and their enablers.

It's obvious. Anything else?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

fuse wrote:Much conflation

- a general bail/bond fund is not an antifa defense fund.
- protestors and rioters are not the same thing.
- posting bail does not “free” anyone from justice.

Anyone who posts bail would still have to stand stand trial if subsequently charged. Turns out some protestors were temporarily detained or incarcerated without any charges to follow.

I simply wanted to know if the claim that Kamala Harris donated to an antifa defense fund was true.

How many of your BLM rioting friends tapped into the funds to get a free bailout?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

maybe move this antifa discussion somewhere else
maybe
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Meno_ wrote:Having been brought up in a communist country, and aware of the analysis here based on minute differences of opinionated demonstration, gives me, at least a structural interpretation, around which, the seminal logic can be associated with democratic 'principals' ; to reconstruct a limely scenario , which may likely confirm and conform to pupular opinion.

I too grew up in an era, of when the UK was still a Socialistic post-war entity, but the shift.. towards the more balanced economic model that we have now, was a swift one. Ration books still in existence in the early 70s, the Unions running the conglomerate-show and workers lives, and coal.. being worshipped like a god.. or should that be a polluting false idol?

Can anyone be but an interpreter, on what Marxism really is and on what Marx’s intentions truly were.. but it seems that Marx is the only one that will truly ever really know, and all thought on the matter from everyone else, being various degrees of conjecture.

Having visited Russia.. during the final years of the Glasnost and Perestroika reforms, the place was truly something to experience, back then. Humanity's tears, over the state of our current global affairs, are crocodile ones.. in comparison to what the world had previously been like before/back then.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

phoneutria wrote:maybe move this antifa discussion somewhere else
maybe

If you can't connect the dots from Marx to Antifa, then you're as clueless as he is.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Furthermore, here is the moronic rationale Sil has...

That you have to have God's Word Himself, otherwise you cannot interpret The Bible on your own.

Wrong, what Marx did or did not say, is less relevant to how Marxism has "progressed", to now, to include many or all other aspects of Class Warfare, and how underclasses of society overthrow the overclasses.

If you can't understand the subtleties, then that's your own problem and lack of intelligence. If you want to base your position on a logical fallacy, then go ahead, be my guest.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

It's not ironic, nor a coincidence, that social decay and societal destabilization goes hand-in-hand with "Marxism" and what Marx actually wrote/said/believed. It's there in black-and-white. It's there historically. It's not irony nor coincidence that 'Communism' is the ideological follow-up and progression, from one step to the next. It's not irony nor coincidence that Communism 'won' in the Eastern Hemisphere and throughout Eastern Civilization. It's not irony nor coincidence that Marxism is inherently and fundamentally Anti-Western and Anti-Freedom. It is against Freedom. It is against Classical Liberty. It is against America.

Now the peons, phony and Sil, want to pull discussion toward "who is Authorized to interpret Marx-himself" as-if that carried any weight or merit. It doesn't. Because if that were true, then they, and Prom, would have been forced to respond to Jordan Peterson and other "credentialed" mainline, mainstream philosophers and thinkers. They don't though, they ignore it, obviously and expectedly, because this would force them into Concessions in this thread. Marxism really is about Class Warfare and the destabilization of (Western) society. If you want to ignore history, and detail out every letter and audible spoken by "Marx-Himself", then you are obliged to respect the greater historical context, again, which nobody in this thread is really doing, therefore admitting to a lack of honesty, sincerity, and/or philosophical insight.

I claim it's a lack of all three.

The simple matter and conclusion is: Sil, Prom, PK, don't really know what Marxism is afterall, mostly demonstrated by the lack of historical awareness, especially recent history. It wasn't too long ago that Marx was even alive, that WW2 ended, that the Berlin Wall fell, that Communism dominated China and East Asia.

Meanwhile, USA is rapidly heading to a Civil War, destroying innocent people's lives, businesses, and with political executions in the street.

Yes, it is a lack of all three. Credit given where Credit is due. Piss off if you don't want to take these matters seriously. As everybody can see clearly now, these "ideological" matters have real-world consequences.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

_
Pretty much.. regarding Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, in the recent historical past, of the last few decades.

But perhaps they are solely focusing on Marx and his intentions, without looking further afield, at a global level.. or if they did, I missed it.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

You know Urwrong? Again You’re wrong.

Communism, Marxism and socialism are very rarely practiced on earth.

These people are not wrong to tell you that the USSR and China were totalitarian states and had nothing to do with Marxism. Or communism.

You’re embarrassing yourself in this thread.

You hate socialism? Let’s tear up all of our roads and train tracks then! Let’s get rid of public schools then.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any clue?

The US is a socialist country dude. The next logical step is to get rid of corporate welfare.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

_
What is difference between communism and socialism?

The main difference is that socialism is compatible with democracy and liberty, whereas Communism involves creating an 'equal society' through an authoritarian state, which denies basic liberties. ... Communism is a political and economic ideology – closely associated with the state Communism of the Soviet Union and China.6 May 2020

Post WW2, most countries had no choice but to implement strict State operations, because.. well, you know.. goods and produce were very lacking for many decades after that war, and everything.. in short supply.

The lack of a basic level of education for some here, is very telling. History doesn’t start from the year a person was born, but it seems that some think it does, lol.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

MagsJ,

That’s just not true.

Communistic societies have elder councils at the very worst. They have only been found in remote areas in the world (tribes in geographically isolated areas like mountains and islands).

It’s never been known to occur in any large scale civilization.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Ecmandu wrote:Communistic societies have elder councils at the very worst. They have only been found in remote areas in the world (tribes in geographically isolated areas like mountains and islands).

It’s never been known to occur in any large scale civilization.

So why do you think they call it "Chinese Communist Party"?
You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 1054
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

obsrvr524 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Communistic societies have elder councils at the very worst. They have only been found in remote areas in the world (tribes in geographically isolated areas like mountains and islands).

It’s never been known to occur in any large scale civilization.

So why do you think they call it "Chinese Communist Party"?

Duh. Propaganda.

The U.S. does it too
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Both the US and China are calling China a communist nation, as well as every major nation in the world as far as I can see and the U.N.. So what makes you think that you have it right when nearly the entire world, even though they vehemently disagree with each other agree that you are wrong?
You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 1054
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

obsrvr524 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Communistic societies have elder councils at the very worst. They have only been found in remote areas in the world (tribes in geographically isolated areas like mountains and islands).

It’s never been known to occur in any large scale civilization.

So why do you think they call it "Chinese Communist Party"?

Next.. most here will be saying that Italy and Japan were never Fascist, Britain was never Socialist, and Russia was never Marxist/Socialist/Communist.. when in fact Russia has been all of those things at one point or another, in time. Can some not keep up with history and historical fact?

The sock-puppets are waning, and with them their spread of disinformation, smoke-screens, and side-stepping of questions..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Ecmandu wrote:You know Urwrong? Again You’re wrong.

Communism, Marxism and socialism are very rarely practiced on earth.

These people are not wrong to tell you that the USSR and China were totalitarian states and had nothing to do with Marxism. Or communism.

You’re embarrassing yourself in this thread.

You hate socialism? Let’s tear up all of our roads and train tracks then! Let’s get rid of public schools then.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any clue?

The US is a socialist country dude. The next logical step is to get rid of corporate welfare.

Open a history book.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Seriously,

All of you are fucking morons.

Larger states have done socialism.

None of them have done communism.

None of them have done Marxism.

You people are seriously embarrassing yourselves.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11077
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

_
Re: what Marxism really is.....
Postby Ecmandu » Sat 17 Oct, 2020 17:13
You know Urwrong? Again You’re wrong.

Communism, Marxism and socialism are very rarely practiced on earth.

Me laughing profusely
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 20919
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

phoneutria wrote:you don't exchange for equivalent value
you exchange for higher value
you don't want the thing you're holding anymore
you want the other thing
naturally the other thing is worth more to you
if it wasn't worth more, you wouldn't do the trade
karl seriously?
you're going to base an entire economic theory on THIS?
and then use it to call for violent revolution?
damn son

The problem with this conception is that, yes, there is no incentive to exchange unless both parties prefer what they get to what they give, but equally they don't exchange unless they reach an equality in agreement.
Both "I find higher value in what I gain compared to what I lose" happening on both sides must occur and "I find an equilibrium with my trading partner or we don't agree and finalise the trade" must also occur.

He's not wrong, but neither are you.

Both are expressions of value, and value isn't a simplistic concept either. Value changes over time and is dependent on current conditions - an exchange more reflects "what I value right now" than "what I value". Values aren't just fleeting fancies, but neither are they so abstracted from what's concrete that they have no immanent reality - there's just different frames of reference from which to construct a notion of "value", which emerge from a dialectic of different levels of relatively macro and micro observations.

Needless to say, you don't "not want the thing you're holding anymore" when "you want the other thing". You most likely want both, otherwise you wouldn't have previously traded or worked to obtain the thing you're holding before you exchange it for something else. The "use value" changed over time as a result of consumption, and the "exchange value" changed to in accordance with predictions about how "use value" changed over time for other people. It's a solid basis upon which to develop an economic theory - but as I'll continue to repeat, I'm not in favour of calling for violent revolution based on any theory.

This is what other people continue to misunderstand about Marx. He penned some important and valid ideas, from which can be extracted improvements. It's not a case of "completely right in every way in everything he said" or "kill it with fire". It's something to build upon, and aiming to do so can in that sense make you a "Marxist" but it doesn't make you a devout extremist to every detail of his work regardless of the consequences. This is something that goes way over the heads of today's stupidly political partisans. Whatever happened to reasonable consideration of ideas, huh? Not saying you're guilty of this - but I'm sure you noticed the modern approach to "emotionally charged" topics like this.

phoneutria wrote:ok
so let me get more specific with this
marx sets out to try to find out what composes the value of a commodity
has to be something useful that is made for exchange
and the exchange is always between two things of the same value
so to abstract the thing into an equivalence
you have to throw out the actual use value of the thing
and then what you have left is labor
so labor becomes the common element of equivalence
abstract human labor as an unit of measurement
that, is the law
BUT except not lazy or unskilled laborers that just take longer to do the thing
BUT also not stuff done with cheap materials, i mean, man you can't consider that equivalent
so OK that is the law minus these two exceptions
(lol)
no wait i got one more exception, prices fluctuate
but he proposes the fluctuation will happen around this labor value
because it is a law
like the law of gravity
he literally compared this to the law of gravity ok?

I'm not familiar with the quote about gravity, nor the context - but I'm not out to defend every single sentiment expressed by the guy either way. Labour isn't inherently measured by time taken nor the cost of what labour has to work with - those are just capitalist attempts to bound labour into a metric that can be directly translated into dollars. As I explained in my last post, this is in the context of a consumer/capitalist driven economy where the customer is always right and the ideal worker is required to be infinitely obedient to that cause, and I explained how damaging this absolute can be to worker mentality for the sake of more and more better and better stuff. Marx reminds us that there is validity to the other side of this equation - and this is more and more the case as developing countries' issues with scarcity become replaced by developed countries' issues with over-abundance. Therein lies at least one of the ingredients of developing countries pretending to have a Communist revolution simply replaces one dictatorship for another to struggle with the problem of scarcity. Capitalism cures that just fine - the issue is whether it does so indefinitely at whatever cost to the worker, just for the same of more and more better and better stuff.

What's so wrong with worker life becoming a satisfaction in itself when the urgency of consumer "use" and the required quantities slowly become things of the past? Intellectuals have long predicted that machines will replace the need to work, but Capitalism relentlessly forces humans into smaller and more meaningless niches simply to satisfy the dictum to sacrifice yourself to whatever cause just to prove you are worthy of an income, otherwise you are not permitted to acquire a means to live at all (pathetically cushioned by the efforts of a "State" to alleviate this economic absolute). The creativity to find more and more "jobs" for people to do just to add the slightest little bit of extra value to the simple selling of a product or service is almost impressive if it weren't so degrading and unnecessary. There's got to be a lid on it eventually though, before full time jobs amount to basically nothing - and happily increasing automation and the looming potential of AI push these issues. The Capitalist maxim to sacrifice the worker for the benefit of the consumer is not as far as "value" stretches. We can do better than this.

phoneutria wrote:ok so if the value of the thing is determined by it's abstract human labor
if you're getting more money when you sell than you paid the laborer
where is this "surplus value coming from?"
labor exploitation

1. that equivalence thing is false as explained above

The whole point is that labour is so far removed from money, that it's an absurdity to translate it into a "price" via the mismatch of "use value" with "exchange value".
The only difference (other than insurance allowances to account for unforeseen circumstances, as I admitted) between the output of "this is the financial cost of having produced the product/service" and the input of "this is physical cost of labour having produced the product/service" is labour not getting paid for what they literally accomplished. Consumers aren't paid for informing them about what to do. The only remaining task is to do it, which is 100% a function of labour.

phoneutria wrote:2. even if the equivalence thing was right
did marx do a good job of explaining that the equivalence is defined in terms of labor?
cuz it sounds like he wanted to arrive a labor
and he was just coming out with ways to rule other things out
i mean, if a commodity is a useful thing created by labor and exchangeable
does that mean a piece of land is not a commodity?
does it mean that a piece of land with a gold in it has no trade value?
whatcha smoking karl?

I dunno if he did a perfect job of explaining something that's true. My goal is to work at explaining something that's true "better".

A piece of land can be treated as a commodity, but c'mon. It's just a location in physical space that was there long before we got here and will remain long after we've gone. How can that be "ours" if not for protestations of territory backed up by physical force and influenced by a desire to feel safe and secure? It's a literal manifestation of wishful thinking - but whatever: it has utility to think of things falsely in order to enable a certain agenda (see Experientialism). A piece of land with gold in it is nice to treat as safe and secure such that someone can distribute the gold to wherever it's valuable to distribute it. Do they own that land? Well no, but collectively agreeing that acting like they do serves a purpose.

phoneutria wrote:3. if labor can be made into an abstract unit of measurement
excluding all of the inconvenient exceptions, why can't the same be done for use value?

The point is it's absurd to try. Again, it's a falsity that has utility (Experientialism).

phoneutria wrote:4.do prices even fluctuate around labor value?
is this "law" real aka actually explaining phenomenon?

Do they at the moment in a consumer/capitalist driven economy? No.
Could they? Yes.
Should they? It depends on how rich the society is. We're rich, we could give a shit about workers instead of solely consumers if we wanted.

phoneutria wrote:cuz listen, lets say if the abstract labor is the same cost to make a cake and to make a pie, $5 worth of labor/time but the cost of the materials is$1 to make a cake and $3 to make a pie and they're both selling at$6
the profit rate will be much higher for the cake shop
even though the surplus value is the same

You're establishing the dollar rate of employing somebody to make a cake and a pie as a given.
In current practice, this is a presumably a theoretical market rate.
The labour force could be paid the respective $5 or$3 per cake/pie as a result of selling them each for $6. Why not pay them for transforming$1 or $3 of "value" into$6 of "value"? Because you began with the ability to get them to perform that labour for the "market rate" rather than for what they're literally doing. Because employers can. Hey, if they don't do it, someone else will, right? That's the essence of a market economy - opportunism.

phoneutria wrote:then...
Marx wrote:very different rates of profit arise in the various spheres of production,(...)capital withdraws from a sphere with a low rate of profit and invades others, which yield a higher profit”

yes, karl, nicely put

Yes, an adequate description of rational capitalistic behaviour in a market economy.
Notably, in practice the State picks up the slack to make sure that the "unprofitable" but still necessary tasks are still accomplished such that we can at least pretend to live in civilised countries in spite of Capitalism invading spheres where higher labour exploitation is possible.

phoneutria wrote:then prices don't fluctuate around labor value after all, karl?
instead the fluctuate around rates of profit?
cuz you know, you were saying before very adamantly that value is based on labor and labor alone
you know that thing you said about commodities which embody the same amount of labor
that they must exchange for each other
that it's a law like gravity
and you based your entire theory of exploitation on top of it
thought you were more dumber
but it's nice when people admit that they were wrong
though you realize that was the start of the whole theory, right?
that was the thing you based your law on
so if that's false
can... can we just... put this down and one of the biggest mistakes in history
alongside with every evil that it caused alongside that damn manifesto
and move the fuck on?
can we?

I think if we abandon consideration for the value of labour, we're lost. That would be one of the biggest mistakes in history if we managed to wrangle human life into that dynamic.

Just... don't forget about labour, please? It wouldn't be so bad if they were simply scammed instead of mentally abused on top of that - by that Capitalism dictum of "acceptable channel of potentially minimal input" or "no right to sustain your means to live".

If it's cool with you, I'll conclude this post by being a dick and pointing out the "double comparative" of "more dumber". The function of a comparative is achieved by "more dumb" or "dumber", and the doubling up is grammatically redundant.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

What childish idiocy is this?

Labor is "far removed" from money?

No it's not. The reason why workers don't "own" their work is because they sell it/trade it for their wage. That's the essence of Capitalism. You trade your work for money.

Not that laze-abouts who have never worked a hard day's work, nor calloused their hands, like you, Prom, and Phone would ever know about.

You Marxists are all the same with your blatant ignorance.

Go plow a field and come back, tell me how "abstract" money is. Ignorant.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

You've lost your godamn marbles, son. I do more 'work' in a day than you do in a month.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 3640
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

I was being an ass. I wanted to see if you were still reading Prom. I know you're legit. I can't say the same for Sil and Phone though.

I've put my time in on the grinder though.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 3422
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: what Marxism really is.....

Urwrongx1000 wrote:What childish idiocy is this?

Labor is "far removed" from money?

No it's not. The reason why workers don't "own" their work is because they sell it/trade it for their wage. That's the essence of Capitalism. You trade your work for money.

Not that laze-abouts who have never worked a hard day's work, nor calloused their hands, like you, Prom, and Phone would ever know about.

You Marxists are all the same with your blatant ignorance.

Go plow a field and come back, tell me how "abstract" money is. Ignorant.

Right, I'll go plow a field and I'll tell you how any dollars I used to plow it.

Fucking. Retarded. Go. Away.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

PreviousNext